The winners are the people of our nation, as the Constitution was upheld as intended by our Founding Fathers. A viewpoint that conservatives adhere to, not unions, although they benefit from the original intent of our Founding Fathers.

 

Bingo!

Do you really think in drafting the Constitution that the Founding Fathers were concerned that the Constitution protect a corporation's ability to give money to political candidates? I think they'd laugh at us, then cry.

Do you really think in drafting the Constitution that the Founding Fathers were concerned that the Constitution protect a corporation's ability to give money to political candidates? I think they'd laugh at us, then cry.

A corporation is for all intents and purposes no different from a union, a fraternity, sorority, or any other collection of individuals.

 

Every person with a retirement plan with even one share of stock is a member of a corporation.

 

How is a corporation any different from the 527 groups funded by George Soros and others to forward their agenda?

 

Why should groups like that be entitled to free speech that other groups are not?

 

As far as the possibility of "This ad paid for by Exxon/Mobil" or "This ad paid for by America Coming Together" or "This ad paid for by Center for American Progress" give me "This ad paid for by Exxon/Mobil" any day of the week... at least we will know clearly what the viewpoint and agenda of the message is all about.

 

The fact that voters have the option of boycotting or taking their business elsewhere will go a long way to keep corporate messages in line. How does anyone boycott Soros?

You're not actually trying to say this isn't a blatant case of the same "judicial activism" that right-wingers have been whining about in chorus for years?

 

Don't know about him, but that's what I'm saying.

 

SCOTUS did not overturn "a century of law" as Obama claimed. Simply not true. There is a century of law that restricts corporate contributions to candidates. The recent ruling simply call the restriction it into question. It does not overturn it.

I think a better question would be why a similarly constructed Court would rule in favor of free speech in this case, but not in a case like the one involving the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner. I know the circumstances couldn't be more different, but I think there is a consistent position on both of those.

I think a better question would be why a similarly constructed Court would rule in favor of free speech in this case, but not in a case like the one involving the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner. I know the circumstances couldn't be more different, but I think there is a consistent position on both of those.

 

An interesting corollary. The bong hits 4 jesus case was billed as a "free speech" case but it was really more of a case about the an enforceability of student conduct policy at a school function. Had this not been a school function, the banner would have been a non-issue.

 

Public school conduct policies are able to "limit" free speech per interpretations of the 1st and 14th amendments.

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm

 

http://www.modrall.com/0927071190907578.art

Chief Justice, Supreme Court Salary $218,000

 

Judge Judy 2010 contract $40,000,000...........

Corporations can not give to individual candidates so they do not have exactly the same rights.

 

I would not mind if corporations were banned from giving to the political parties as well. I believe that because contributions to invidiviual candidates is capped at around $2,000 candidates are completely dependent on the deep pocket political parties. And that is one of the reasons for the loss of independence in elected officials.

 

Also, if the government want to shut down a specific channel of advertisement - TV ads - that could be done. Britain does this. If that channel were shut down for all direct candidate advocacy by all parties, individuals, groups, etc. then it probably would not be considered a free-speech issue. But given dollars involved that will never happen.

 

They can now, this ruling says all laws dealing with singling out corporations are unconstitutional. The suit pretty much says corporations have the same rights as individuals.

An interesting corollary. The bong hits 4 jesus case was billed as a "free speech" case but it was really more of a case about the an enforceability of student conduct policy at a school function. Had this not been a school function, the banner would have been a non-issue.

 

Public school conduct policies are able to "limit" free speech per interpretations of the 1st and 14th amendments.

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm

 

http://www.modrall.com/0927071190907578.art

 

I definitely agree it's a difficult comparison. At the same time, in one instance the Court held that certain limitations of speech are applicable in one case while others are not. While I don't want to sweep away nuance, I think those trumpeting the ruling as an example of the "strict interpretivist" vision of conservative justices aren't on very solid ground.

They can now, this ruling says all laws dealing with singling out corporations are unconstitutional. The suit pretty much says corporations have the same rights as individuals.

 

I may be wrong but what I have read say the did leave in the restriction of direct contribution.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

 

"The majority opinion did not disturb bans on direct contributions to candidates, but the two sides disagreed about whether independent expenditures came close to amounting to the same thing."

 

Please do not take this as strong pro-big-corporation. But I do not feel that rights should be limited due to size or perceived power. Which is what was done. The original McCain-Feingold law had 'arbitary and capricious' all over it. It restricted not only 'powerful corporations', but unions, non-profits, and other freely assembled groups that represented real people who want to petition either directly or indirectly their cause. And this is a basic freedom of the 1st Amendement that should not be easily cast aside.

 

I don't believe in 'too big to fail' or in most government bail outs. Nothing should be considered 'too big to fail' in free market that functions. The concept of TBTF and bailouts have been darlings of both political parties at the national level. The 'pubs like them because it justify mergers, consolidations, etc. which naturally drive higher profits through economy of scale and efficiency. The dems like them because it centralizes private power that is easier to control or take over from a powerful centralized government - either through regulation or direct take over, as we have seen.

 

I would love to see the government divest of Freddie and Fannie and break up the AIGs and Bank America's of the world via anti-monopoly justice action. But they won't do either since both parties like these big entities.

Chief Justice, Supreme Court Salary $218,000

 

Judge Judy 2010 contract $40,000,000...........

 

:laugh: